Morality Quiz

Found this pole at Professor Bainbridge. Pretty interesting.

The professor scored:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.83.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

My score was:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

So the professor is highly moral and I'm highly amoral. Heh.

This is the first thing in the explanation of the results:

You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

They got it wrong. I didn't think that the actions were of questionable morality. I found some of the depicted acts as revolting due to ingrained norms that I grew up with. Just because I don't rail against those actions and condemn them doesn't mean I'm confused or immoral. Personally, I think it is very indicative that I don't see any reason to make excessive judgements on situations that are, in my view, completely personal.

Try the quiz. There is a lot of explanation of the results at the end. I don't necessarily agree with them, but it is interesting.